Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA00314 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:43:14 +0100 Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:31:34 +0100 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <20010414113134.B1365@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AD60CB8.15208.7F3967@localhost>; <20010413163856.B1851@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AD73081.24046.34F58A@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AD73081.24046.34F58A@localhost>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:59:45PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:59:45PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2001, at 16:38, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > So we can't actually trace causality, but we can suppose it to exist
> > wherever it seems to be required? That's convenient.
> We can't specify which sound wave of the dynamite caused the
> avalanche, but we can reasonably conclude that the explosion had
> something to do with it.
But we don't need either science or philosophy to do that, do we?
Shouldn't these disciplines allow us to delve somewhat deeper?
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 14 2001 - 11:53:16 BST